Engineering Excellence and the Implementation of the Technical Authority at the Goddard Space Flight Center

1
Engineering Excellence and the Implementation of
the Technical Authority at the Goddard Space
Flight Center

• Orlando Figueroa
• Director, Advanced Engineering Technology

2
Agenda

• Changing NASAs Organizational System
• GSFCs - The Elements That Make Our Story a
  Successful One
• NASAs Governance Model
• The AETD Organization
• Systems Engineering Education and Development
• Summary

3
Excerpts From The CAIB Report

• Signals were overlooked, people were silenced,
  and useful information and dissenting views on
  technical issues did not surface at higher
  levels.
• An organization system failure calls for
  corrective measures that address all relevant
  levels of the organization, but for all of its
  its cutting edge technologies, diving catch
  rescues, and imaginative plans for the technology
  and the future of space exploration, NASA has
  shown very little understanding of the inner
  workings of its own organization.
• NASA structure changed as roles and
  responsibilities were transferred to contractors,
  which increased the dependence on the private
  sector for safety functions and risk assessment
  while simultaneously reducing the in-house
  capability to spot safety and technical risk
  issues.
• When lives and mission success are on the
  line, flexibility and democratic process should
  take priority over bureaucratic response.

4
A History of Success

• 1959 - 2005

16
Spacecraft Failures
1
14
1
Launch Vehicle Failures
1
13
12
1
12
2
1
Successes
10
2
1
10
10
Number of Launches
1
1
9
9
9
8
4
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
8
1
1
1
7
7
7
6
1
3
3
6
6
6
1
1
1
1
3
5
5
5
4
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
2003
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2005
Year
Financial success through same period in low
90s for things that we had direct control over
5
Fundamentals of System Designand Checks and
Balances
System of Interest
Enabling System
System of Interest
System of Interest
Enabling System
System of Interest
Enabling System
Policies, Processes Concepts
System of Interest
Enabling System
Capability
Review Reporting
System Design
6
Project Mgr Integrates Team andis Accountable
for Mission success
Primary authority and accountability
Project Manager
Lead Project Systems Engineer
System Assurance Manager
Element B Manager
Element n Manager
Element A Manager
Contractor Proj. Mgr.
NASA Engineering Workforce
Contractor Engineering
7
Review and Reporting

• Center Management Council integrates across all
  support needed to
• assess and ensure proper execution
• Via monthly and life cycle event driven reviews
• Assess project support, Engineering, SMA,
  Science,
• CFO,CIO, Procurement, Facility Operations,
  Security, etc

GSFC Center Director
Applied Engineering and Technology Directorate
Director
Flight Programs and Projects Director
Office of System Safety and Mission
Assurance Director
Suborbital and Special Orbital Projects Director
Division Chiefs
Branch Heads
Lead Systems Engineers
Program/Project Managers
System Assurance Managers
Discipline Engineers
Safety and Mission Assurance Discipline Engineers
Direct Report
Technical Authority
Matrix Report
Report
8
Policy, Processes and Concepts

• Continuous monitoring by Engineering and SMA
  organizations to ensure rigorous execution of
  technical requirements
• ensure application of Agency policy documents
• monthly status reviews, others as needed
• strong technical requirements documents
• e.g. GOLD rules, Goddard Environmental
  Verification Specification, Systems Engineering
  GPR, Mission Assurance Requirements, etc
• Support structure by Flight Projects Directorate
  to ensure rigorous implementation of management
  processes and principles

9
Former Governance Model
NASA Administrator
Office of Safety and Mission Assurance Director
NASA Chief Engineer
Mission Directorate Associate Administrator
GSFC Center Director
GSFC Chief Engineer
Applied Engineering and Technology Directorate
Director
Flight Programs and Projects Director
Office of System Safety and Mission
Assurance Director
Suborbital and Special Orbital Projects Director
AETD Chief Engineer
Division Chiefs
Div Chief Engineer
Branch Heads
Lead Systems Engineers
Program/Project Managers
System Assurance Managers
Discipline Engineers
Safety and Mission Assurance Discipline Engineers
Direct Report
10
New Governance Model
NASA Administrator
Office of Safety and Mission Assurance Director
NASA Chief Engineer
GSFC Center Director
Mission Directorate Associate Administrator
GSFC Chief Engineer
Applied Engineering and Technology Directorate
Director
Flight Programs and Projects Director
Office of System Safety and Mission
Assurance Director
Suborbital and Special Orbital Projects Director
AETD Chief Engineer
Division Chiefs
Div Chief Engineer
Branch Heads
Lead Systems Engineers
Program/Project Managers
System Assurance Managers
Discipline Engineers
Safety and Mission Assurance Discipline Engineers
TA
Direct Report
Technical Authority
Matrix Report
Report
Direct Report
Technical Authority
Matrix Report
Report
11
The Case for theNew Governance Model

• Eliminate conflict of interests between
  programmatic content and institutional health
• Balance of power between Program/Project
  Management, Engineering, Safety and Assurance
• Provide independent channels of access to the
  Administrators Office to communicate issues or
  to appeal decisions that may be considered
  detrimental to mission success

12
AETD Organization
AET DIRECTORATE Code 500 Director Orlando
Figueroa (x6-6218) Deputy Director Thomas
Magner (x6-6422) Deputy Planning Dvpmt B.
Butterworth (x6-6185) Assistant for Eng Support
Stan Wojnar (x6-8776) Assistant for Business
Development - Juan Roman GSFC Chief Technologist
Peter Hughes (x6-2342) Assistant for Wallops
Steve Nelson (x7-2396)
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT OFFICE - Code 501 Chief
Curtis Johnson (x6-6187) Associate Elaine
Slaugh Associate Dona McKenney
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICE - Code 504 Chief
Nona Cheeks (x6-5810)
(28)
GSFC TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT OFFICE - Code 502
Chief Peter Hughes
(5)
(1311)
(10)
GSFC Chief Engineer Steve Scott (x6-2529) AETD
Chief Engineer Tom McCarthy (x6-6422) Deputy
AETD Chf Eng Madeline Butler (x6-4806)
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS DIVISION Code 540 Chief Ken
Hinkle (x67101) Associate Lee
Niemeyer Associate Laura Milam
INSTRUMENT SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY DIVISION Code 550
Chief Rich Barney (x6-7531) Assoc Felicia
Jones-Selden Assoc Peter Maymon
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION Code 560 Chief
John Day (x65118) Associate Fred
Huegel Associate Bob Lebair
(261)
(285)
(198)
MISSION ENGINEERING SYSTEMS ANALYSIS DIVISION
Code 590 Chief Dennis Andrucyk
(x6-8496) Associate John Deily Associate Eric
Isaac
INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIVISION Code 580 Chief
Joe Hennessy (x6-8623) Associate Martha
Chu Associate Barbara Pfarr
(281)
(223)
Acting
13
Tactical Thrusts/Health Metrics

• Safety
• Critical assessments and corrective action
• National Assets (Facilities and infrastructure)
• Critical assessments and corrective action
• Highly capable diverse workforce
• Managing diversity
• Strategic hiring policies
• Training and development
• Rewards and recognition
• Strategic technology development
• Hands-on experience
• Tools for increased efficiency and effectiveness
• Integrated Design Environment
• Human Capital Management (transition/available
  for new work, core competencies)
• Resource management (full cost environment)
• Capability Maturity for software development
• Systems Engineering Processes and Procedures
• Honoring commitments
• Customer satisfaction

14
AETD Median Age Compared to Center Regional and
National Aerospace
15
AETD Age Distribution Compared to Center MD
Aerospace
16
AETD Engineers Ethnic Diversity
17
AETD Education
18
AETD In-House Work
Projects
MMS Spacecraft
MMS Ground System
MMS IRAS
Express Pallet Dev
GPM
JWST ISIM-Structure
LRO S/C
SDO
ST-5
ST-8
Aquarius
JWST ISIM-NIRCAM
JWST ISIM-NIRSPEC
LOLA Instrument
MMS-FAST Plasma Instrument
SAM (w/o QMS)
SAM-QMS Instrument
1323 AETD Ceiling
1077 Non-Supv Engineers Technicians
1/3 of Non-Supv Engineers Technicians
GSFC won through competition
As of 3/22/06 3pm
19
AETD Engineering Capability Areas

• Mission Systems Engineering
• System/Mission Design and architecture
• Requirements Management
• Interface Management
• Resource (mass, power, data rate) Management
• Electrostatic Cleanliness
• Magnetics Management
• Verification and Validation
• Reliability assessment
• Technical risk management
• Instrument Systems
• Reliability
• System Verification
• Structural/Mechanical
• Thermal
• Power
• Electrical and Harness

• Guidance Navigation
• Propulsion
• Communications
• Command and Data Handling
• Mechanisms
• Flight Software
• Ground Software
• Parts Engineering
• Materials
• Radiation
• Contamination Control
• Integration and Test
• Aerospace Technicians
• Test Systems Design
• Test Equipment Development
• Launch Vehicle Integration
• Facilities Management and Usage

Supported CEV Smart Buyer 90 day study in
leadership capacity
20
Areas of Immediate Attention

• Development program for Systems Engineers
• Cuts to didactic development component threaten
• Facilities and infrastructure critical inventory
• Threats to design and analysis tools
• Focus hiring on fresh-outs to ensure longevity of
  competencies
• Safety critical inventory and corrective action
• Policies and procedures to implement NASA Systems
  Engineering Processes and Requirements (NPR 7123)
• Policies and procedures to implement
  OCE/Technical Authority

21
The Systems Engineering Continuum
Discipline Systems Engineers
Mid Level
Senior Level
Entry Level
Project Systems Engineers
Program Systems Engineers
Fundamentals of Systems Engineering (Systems
Design)
System Engineers Education and Development (SEED)
Jump Start
22
Demand for Highly Trained Systems Engineers

• The Demand for highly capable SEs
• There is a growing shortage of highly capable
  Systems Engineers not only at Goddard, but for
  the entire Agency and in private industry.
• The Supply is currently NOT meeting the Demand.
• Attrition will always be with us (retirement,
  move on to Project Management, loss to other
  agencies, etc.).
• The Demand will continue
• GSFC needs a reliable, continuing source of SEs
  who will grow into highly capable SEs in a
  minimum amount of time.
• Administrator Griffin has stated that he wants to
  move Systems Engineering back into civil service
  in the Agency which will only increase demand for
  SEs Agencywide. (Note With respect to Goddard,
  this has been the predominant method of systems
  engineering).

23
Developing the Systems Engineering Capability (1
of 2)

• Career path (metamorphosis) and outside hiring
  needs to be supplemented with a program to
  produce a greater number of well trained and
  highly capable SEs in a shorter amount of time.
• The SEED program has been created to help develop
  the capabilities of about five System Engineers
  per year (2 year development program).

24
Developing the Systems Engineering Capability

• System Engineering is a mindset built on
• Education
• Experience
• Many years of the right experience.
• Judgment
• Knowledge of how to tap the correct resources to
  get the right answers and/or make the right
  decisions.
• Training
• Solid technical background, knowledge, and
  skills.
• Big Picture/Whole Picture thinking
• Effective Leadership

25
Systems Engineering Education Development
Program (SEED)

• Systems Engineering Education Development
  (SEED) is a program to take mid-level discipline
  engineers and train them to become Systems
  Engineers.
• Assignments and classes are selected to broaden
  the Participants experience across several
  disciplines, subsystems, and phases of the
  mission life cycle.
• Program length is approximately 2 years, and the
  graduate receives a non-competitive consideration
  for any Goddard GS-14 systems engineering
  position (meets APPEL Level 3 requirements).

26
SEED Graduate Rate
27
SEED Budget Requirements
Future
History
1.SEEDling FTEs 50 covered by Flight Projects
25 formal training 25 not funded by
Projects
28
Summary

• A Legacy of excellence in the art and science of
  the engineering of systems
• A healthy, safe and highly capable diverse
  organization
• A high performing fiscally responsible
  organization

Policies, Processes Concepts
Capability
Knowledge Skill of Workforce
Tools Methods